State v. Conway

2025 Ohio 1844 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District · May 22, 2025 · No. 24AP-700

Summary

The Tenth District Court of Appeals in Ohio reviews the trial court's denial of a motion for appointed counsel to litigate a third successive petition for postconviction relief by an indigent death-row inmate. The court holds that while the denial constitutes a final, appealable order under Ohio law, the defendant lacks a statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel for a successive postconviction petition. Accordingly, the appellate court affirms the trial court's judgment.

Court
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District
Writing for the Court
Beattie Blunt; Dingus
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
May 22, 2025
Docket number
24AP-700
Procedural posture
Appeal from Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying motion for appointment of counsel in a capital case
Precedential value
published
Parties
James T. Conway III v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

post-conviction reliefappellate procedurefinal judgment ruleharmless errorstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedurepost‑conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court's order denying appointment of counsel for a successive post‑conviction petition is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) or (B)(4).
  2. Whether Conway is entitled to appointed counsel under R.C. 2953.21(J)(1) for a third post‑conviction petition.
  3. Whether the trial court's error in denying counsel was harmless.

Holdings

  1. The order is a final, appealable order because it denies a provisional remedy and satisfies the requirements of R.C. 2505.02(B)(4).
  2. Conway is not entitled to appointed counsel because the statutory right applies only to a timely‑filed first petition for post‑conviction relief.
  3. The error was harmless because it did not affect the ultimate result of the case.

Key quotations

Thus, while Mr. Conway, as an indigent defendant who received a death sentence, had a statutory right to appointed counsel to pursue his timely‑filed initial petition for postconviction relief, he did not have a constitutional or statutory right to the counsel he sought from the trial court to pursue his third postconviction relief petition. (¶ 30)
The trial court’s order denying Mr. Conway’s motion for appointment of counsel, pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(J)(1), to litigate a successive petition for postconviction relief is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). (¶ 38)

Factual background

In March 2002 a grand jury indicted James T. Conway III for aggravated murder and related offenses arising from a shooting outside a strip club. He was convicted and sentenced to death in February 2003. After exhausting direct appeals, Conway filed multiple post‑conviction petitions; the trial court denied his request for appointed counsel to pursue a third petition.

Procedural history

Conway was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death in 2003. He filed three successive post‑conviction petitions; the trial court denied his motion for appointment of counsel to litigate a third petition. Conway appealed the denial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…